Fighting kolpak

Here is a solution I thought of.. CSA makes all players that are developed, coached or nurtured in any way from any funds in South Africa sign a contract that prohibits them to enter the country as a member of another country. We may not be able to fight europian law but we sure can make our own. I feel very bitter as a fan that paid many times in the past to go watch cricket and feel that my money went to developing players for other countries and making their talent pool stringer while making ours weaker.

Edit: With in reason of course. More aimed at players who just chose to adopt england as thier country because their ancestors came from there in 1820. This should not apply to marriage and family etc.

Would almost certainly breach the law in any country that had non-antique labour laws, as well as a common law tradition. How are you going to prohibit cricketers from emigrating anyway? Sounds like Soviet Russia. You'll have junior cricketers defecting when they tour England or Australia.

Originally Posted by Irfan

We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team

Would almost certainly breach the law in any country that had non-antique labour laws, as well as a common law tradition. How are you going to prohibit cricketers from emigrating anyway? Sounds like Soviet Russia. You'll have junior cricketers defecting when they tour England or Australia.

This law will apply in SA only and will not concern other countries. Lets take our under 19 team. Make them all sign a clause that says if they wish to play for the under 19 side or any academy in SA, they may never represent another country touring in SA. This way it becomes the other countries responsibilities to ensure that they do not poach players. How would a law covering sport mad in SA by a sport body breach a law in another country.

I don't think such a clause could be binding, and it would fall over the first time it was tested anyway. Say Pietersen had signed that clause. Then he makes himself available for this coming tour of SA. The English selectors are going to chose him, and CSA would be in the position of refusing to accept the English touring team, D'Olivera style, or taking Pietersen to court and probably losing - or at least fighting for so long that he'd be able to play while the case is being working out, or buckling.

If it did work, you're just going to get promising talent fleeing earlier or refusing to participate in such squads. You'll then have to move the point at which such a clause was introduced and there would be no way such a clause could be binding if it were completed by a minor, or by a minor's guardian, once they became adults and changed their mind.

I don't think such a clause could be binding, and it would fall over the first time it was tested anyway. Say Pietersen had signed that clause. Then he makes himself available for this coming tour of SA. The English selectors are going to chose him, and CSA would be in the position of refusing to accept the English touring team, D'Olivera style, or taking Pietersen to court and probably losing - or at least fighting for so long that he'd be able to play while the case is being working out, or buckling.

If it did work, you're just going to get promising talent fleeing earlier or refusing to participate in such squads. You'll then have to move the point at which such a clause was introduced and there would be no way such a clause could be binding if it were completed by a minor, or by a minor's guardian, once they became adults and changed their mind.

I think you'd find the ICC would object as well.

It's really a problem that doesn't have that kind of legal solution.

Sounds like a boycott. Nothing would stop England from picking english talent(if there is any).

Nah, it would be the reverse of a boycott. Teams would be saying "I'm happy to come to play in SA, with the team of eligible players, according to our rules, that we've selected". CSA would either have to object and refuse to take part if a player who had signed that clause was named, or persuade the other countries to abide by it (no chance IMO), or sue for breach of contract to enforce the clause (no chance again IMO). Or they'd have to buckle.

Such a clause would probably not be legally enforceable as its unreasonable in the context of the contract to play U19s or whatever - especially given that it would be so much more severe than what other countries do, what other sports do, or indeed what the ICC says about the criteria for players to change countries.

I think jb is confusing two issues here. Kolpaks, despite being able to play as non-overseas players in the English domestic game, aren't eligible for England as we only select UK & Irish passport holders. So if a bloke with a Kolpak contract is close to selection for SA his status can easily be rescinded; pending proper notice to his county employer. Three such players (Harris, McLaren & Langeveldt) have played for SA v recently.

There is an argument that, far from harming SA, the English domestic game is acting as a well-remunerated finishing school.

UK & EU passport holders are a different matter; legally any of them have the same rights as native-born subjects, so I don't think anything can be done to stop them exercising their freedom of movement. In any event most of the SA-raised players we've selected have at least one British parent, so their links to GB are hardly ancient or tenuous. The only SA import I can think of without British parentage is D'Oliveira, and his case was exceptional in every way.

Here is a solution I thought of.. CSA makes all players that are developed, coached or nurtured in any way from any funds in South Africa sign a contract that prohibits them to enter the country as a member of another country. We may not be able to fight europian law but we sure can make our own. I feel very bitter as a fan that paid many times in the past to go watch cricket and feel that my money went to developing players for other countries and making their talent pool stringer while making ours weaker.

Edit: With in reason of course. More aimed at players who just chose to adopt england as thier country because their ancestors came from there in 1820. This should not apply to marriage and family etc.

"all players that are developed, coached or nurtured in any way from any funds in South Africa" - presumably this includes, and relates largely to, children. You think a court is going to uphold a contract signed by or on behalf of a child who then emigrates from returning to SA to play? You are joking, yes?

And once any player plays county cricket and benefits from any ECB money that is given to the counties, I suggest we revoke their passports and forbid them from leaving the country so they can't go and score runs against us.